Twilight
discussion
Are people who dislike Twilight "obsessed" with Twilight?
message 601:
by
Cinthya
(last edited Oct 30, 2012 12:29PM)
(new)
-
rated it 1 star
Oct 30, 2012 12:28PM
How can you write so much?? Jajajaja.From my point of view people who dislike Twilight is not always obsessed about it. I dislike Twilight but I used to like it!! Until I realized that Twilight fans say... not good things about Harry Potter. So...I´m not obsessed with Twilight I just want to show and make people understand that HP is better :D
reply
|
flag
Everyone so outraged that one could criticize the concept of "choosing to be a housewife", I wonder if your outrage is entirely honest.I presume you all vote for political parties that support capitalism, right? That vote is something of a choice and a vote of confident for a system that says "I'm better than you, I'm more important than you if I succeed in some careers or lifestyle choices than others. In a capitalist society you will be rewarded financially if you choose a certain career (doctor, lawyer, journalist), the reason being that those skills are valued by society more highly.
You'll also be rewarded in terms of the power and influence that you have in society. Not just of you go into politics, but if you enter into spheres of influence and control like banking or international relations or whatever.
Your vote, I would say, is confirmation that you see housewifery as less important - housewives don't need to get paid, mothers don't need to get paid for this "very important job that they do" only to the extent that their partners can pay them. Not important at all then. Maybe you guys should form the National Housewives Alliance to give housewives a greater sphere of influence. Validate the choice that you're so keen to justify on here.
Personally, I don't vote for political parties who support capitalist systems so, truthfully, my actual support of housewives is probably greater than all of yours. I want to see more taxes being paid to support more public and social systems that support poorer classes, uneducated people and the less fortunate in life. So, the idea that my saying "you should try and live more authentically" is so insulting looks rather stupid in that context.
***
Also, have you never honestly thought "that person's life choice is wrong or inauthentic? I wish I could say "why don't you change x about your life to them?
What about women who wear burqas and hijabs? Now, I don't know about you guys but I'm 100% all in favour of women being able to wear these things if they choose to. I would fight any law that said the opposite because I think it's important that people make choices for themselves .... but at the same time I still see it as a symbol of masculine oppression and I would "like" Muslim women to make the choice not to wear them. If I were to have a conversation with a Muslim woman about them (I never have, unfortunately) I would probably discuss with her why I'm not really behind religion and why I'm not into religious structures that visible demarcate women as inferior.
Is it offensive of me to give her my opinion on this?
Does anyone else feel this way, or is it just me?
@ Alex
I'm agree with what you said for the most part. However....is the assumption that we all vote for political parties that support capitalism unfounded? Like are you just simply assuming that out of nowhere? I might have missed something along the way, so please tell me if I did.
Or are you making that assumption based on the other thread participants' defense of housewives? I'm not too familiar with the idea of capitalism, as I've never been terribly interested in politics or government or economy and all that, and at the moment I'm too lazy to Google it, so correct me if I'm wrong.
Though what you said about women wearing burqas and hijabs was interesting, I'd never thought of it that way--how someone could support the ability to choose, but not support the idea of doing something in general.
I'm agree with what you said for the most part. However....is the assumption that we all vote for political parties that support capitalism unfounded? Like are you just simply assuming that out of nowhere? I might have missed something along the way, so please tell me if I did.
Or are you making that assumption based on the other thread participants' defense of housewives? I'm not too familiar with the idea of capitalism, as I've never been terribly interested in politics or government or economy and all that, and at the moment I'm too lazy to Google it, so correct me if I'm wrong.
Though what you said about women wearing burqas and hijabs was interesting, I'd never thought of it that way--how someone could support the ability to choose, but not support the idea of doing something in general.
Jocelyn wrote: "I'm agree with what you said for the most part. However....is the assumption that we all vote for political parties that support capitalism unfounded? Like are you just simply assuming that out of nowhere? I might have missed something along the way, so please tell me if I did."There's only about 2% of Americans who would choose to vote for a president other than the top 2 candidates (in this case Obama or Romney). Both are very strong capitalists. There are no major political candidates in the UK at the moment who aren't also centrist- right wing although there is a small amount of support for the Socialist party. It would be a reasonable guess that most people you talk to support capitalism in some way ... I can usually tell pretty quickly when they don't. Hey, I could be wrong *shrug*
Alex wrote: "Jocelyn wrote: "I'm agree with what you said for the most part. However....is the assumption that we all vote for political parties that support capitalism unfounded? Like are you just simply assum..."
Oh, I see now. Thanks for clarifying.
Oh, I see now. Thanks for clarifying.
I think obessing over Twilight gets kinda of old after awhile. We need to discuss new things then Twilight all the time.
Cinthya wrote: "How can you write so much?? Jajajaja.From my point of view people who dislike Twilight is not always obsessed about it. I dislike Twilight but I used to like it!! Until I realized that Twilight fan..."
I've always agreed that HP is better than Twilight, but HP loses points for Rowling's terrible, terrible, terrible prose and pacing, as well as the fact that her story lines have a tendency to ramble rather than staying relevant to the main conflict.
I've always agreed that HP is better than Twilight, but HP loses points for Rowling's terrible, terrible, terrible prose and pacing, as well as the fact that her story lines have a tendency to ramble rather than staying relevant to the main conflict.
Alex has his opinions just as much as I do on here and everyone else. I like his point of view about housewifery, and everyone else's too. I think he was trying to say that women that stay at home should get out and get an education and better themselves. I do not think he was trying to hurt anyones feelings.
Alex wrote: "I get the impression that people want to believe that this issue isn't relevant in 2012. I don't really understand the willingness to believe that these issues have completely gone away ... times have certainly changed but if you've not noticed that the career ceiling for woman is significantly lower for women than men then you're not looking very hard."
I think the reason why people want to believe it's gone away is because times, like you said, have evolved so much, it's quite easy now to just ignore it. A century ago, if a person said something like "women are stupid and weak" not too many people would care. Now, if someone said the same thing, there'd probably be an onslaught of insults, lectures, and scoldings about what a terrible person he was for saying that. I actually saw a Youtube video like that, and the comments were something like, R U A FCKING TROLL??? U R NAWT A HUMAN BEING! U DESERVE TO DIE A PAINFUL DEATH! I WONDER WAT KINDA MONSTER WAS UR MOTHER!
And besides that, it's kind of just basic human desire. We like to believe that things are more perfect than they really are, and to achieve that desire, we just pretend. And really, can anyone be blamed for that? Who doesn't want a perfect world with a perfect society that holds perfect morals and whatnot? Even if, in the long run, it will bite them in the ass for refusing to acknowledge harsh reality. It's just one of humanity's many flaws, I guess.
I think the reason why people want to believe it's gone away is because times, like you said, have evolved so much, it's quite easy now to just ignore it. A century ago, if a person said something like "women are stupid and weak" not too many people would care. Now, if someone said the same thing, there'd probably be an onslaught of insults, lectures, and scoldings about what a terrible person he was for saying that. I actually saw a Youtube video like that, and the comments were something like, R U A FCKING TROLL??? U R NAWT A HUMAN BEING! U DESERVE TO DIE A PAINFUL DEATH! I WONDER WAT KINDA MONSTER WAS UR MOTHER!
And besides that, it's kind of just basic human desire. We like to believe that things are more perfect than they really are, and to achieve that desire, we just pretend. And really, can anyone be blamed for that? Who doesn't want a perfect world with a perfect society that holds perfect morals and whatnot? Even if, in the long run, it will bite them in the ass for refusing to acknowledge harsh reality. It's just one of humanity's many flaws, I guess.
Alex wrote: "Everyone so outraged that one could criticize the concept of "choosing to be a housewife", I wonder if your outrage is entirely honest.I presume you all vote for political parties that support ca..."
Hahaha. That's a wild assumption to make. I'm not even American.
my actual support of housewives is probably greater than all of yours.
Hahahaha. You don't know these people personally and I can't see how you would come to this conclusion. This reeks of "I'm better than you".
Alex wrote: "What about women who wear burqas and hijabs? Now, I don't know about you guys but I'm 100% all in favour of women being able to wear these things if they choose to. I would fight any law that said the opposite because I think it's important that people make choices for themselves .... but at the same time I still see it as a symbol of masculine oppression and I would "like" Muslim women to make the choice not to wear them.."
Do you see the difference with this statement and your previous statement? You go about it more respectfully. It doesn't seem that you're saying "women should", you're saying "I would like".
Do you honestly not see how your previous statements fail to respect some women? And how you make it sound like "Well, what you should do is…”?
No matter how well-intentioned, it sounded judgmental and you could at least try to see why women took offense. You ask women to consider looking beyond what they know and educating themselves, let you refuse to acknowledge that your viewpoint as feminist can be problematic.
As a feminist mother said to mainstream feminists: "your position as childless, single, free-loving woman is no more valuable or progressive or feminist than mine as a breastfeeding, attachment parenting mother. Patriarchy works to oppress us all. My children, my breastfeeding: they do not."
And while I know you're not a woman, I think you hold a lot of mainstream feminist ideals and it would be good to look and "see the other side" of things.
"Hahahaha. You don't know these people personally and I can't see how you would come to this conclusion. This reeks of "I'm better than you."
Does it really, though? Alex himself made it clear that he doesn't like housewifery. Why would he think himself better simply for supporting something he doesn't even like more than anyone else?
"Do you see the difference with this statement and your previous statement? You go about it more respectfully. It doesn't seem that you're saying "women should", you're saying "I would like".
Do you honestly not see how your previous statements fail to respect some women? And how you make it sound like "Well, what you should do is…”?
No matter how well-intentioned, it sounded judgmental and you could at least try to see why women took offense. You ask women to consider looking beyond what they know and educating themselves, let you refuse to acknowledge that your viewpoint as feminist can be problematic."
I don't really see the problem here. Isn't that completely on a personal level? After all, one of Voltaire's supporters once said something like, "I might disagree with what you say, but I will fight to the death to defend your right to say it." How is this any different? Perhaps what Alex is saying is that he doesn't like that idea in general, but he fully supports the right for people to make that choice.
Though I do have to agree that Alex's assumption about support for capitalism is a pretty risky one; I can kinda see how people would be put off by that.
Does it really, though? Alex himself made it clear that he doesn't like housewifery. Why would he think himself better simply for supporting something he doesn't even like more than anyone else?
"Do you see the difference with this statement and your previous statement? You go about it more respectfully. It doesn't seem that you're saying "women should", you're saying "I would like".
Do you honestly not see how your previous statements fail to respect some women? And how you make it sound like "Well, what you should do is…”?
No matter how well-intentioned, it sounded judgmental and you could at least try to see why women took offense. You ask women to consider looking beyond what they know and educating themselves, let you refuse to acknowledge that your viewpoint as feminist can be problematic."
I don't really see the problem here. Isn't that completely on a personal level? After all, one of Voltaire's supporters once said something like, "I might disagree with what you say, but I will fight to the death to defend your right to say it." How is this any different? Perhaps what Alex is saying is that he doesn't like that idea in general, but he fully supports the right for people to make that choice.
Though I do have to agree that Alex's assumption about support for capitalism is a pretty risky one; I can kinda see how people would be put off by that.
Jocelyn wrote: ""Hahahaha. You don't know these people personally and I can't see how you would come to this conclusion. This reeks of "I'm better than you."Does it really, though? Alex himself made it clear tha..."
Personal preferences I'm okay with but his statements were made as a feminist and is supported by his feminist theory. His ideals revolving around mainstream and radical feminism. Just as society is to be analyzed, feminism should also be analyzed.
He asserts troubling generalizations for those who make traditional choices.
Perhaps what Alex is saying is that he doesn't like that idea in general, but he fully supports the right for people to make that choice.
If that was his point then it didn't come across that way. At least not to me, and I suspect not to the people who were offended.
Diane wrote: "Personal preferences I'm okay with but his statements were made as a feminist and is supported by his feminist theory. His ideals revolving around mainstream and radical feminism. Just as society is to be analyzed, feminism should also be analyzed."
I think perhaps I was a little unclear on that. I was trying to separate his personal preference of disliking housewifery apart from the reasons he chooses to support it. I can understand being offended at his reasons, but I can't understand being offended at the simple fact that he doesn't like housewifery. Like my old chocolate ice cream example:
"I don't like chocolate ice cream."
"You offended me! What the hell is wrong with chocolate?"
"I just don't like chocolate."
On the other hand, if it were something like this...
"I don't like chocolate and I think everyone who likes chocolate is a dumbass."
...then I could understand being offended. (Not to say that anyone said anything like that, I'm blowing some stuff out of proportion for maximum effect.)
"If that was his point then it didn't come across that way. At least not to me, and I suspect not to the people who were offended."
Maybe so. But he did say this, after all:
I would fight any law that said the opposite because I think it's important that people make choices for themselves.
I guess in this case, it's different for everyone. *shrug*
I think perhaps I was a little unclear on that. I was trying to separate his personal preference of disliking housewifery apart from the reasons he chooses to support it. I can understand being offended at his reasons, but I can't understand being offended at the simple fact that he doesn't like housewifery. Like my old chocolate ice cream example:
"I don't like chocolate ice cream."
"You offended me! What the hell is wrong with chocolate?"
"I just don't like chocolate."
On the other hand, if it were something like this...
"I don't like chocolate and I think everyone who likes chocolate is a dumbass."
...then I could understand being offended. (Not to say that anyone said anything like that, I'm blowing some stuff out of proportion for maximum effect.)
"If that was his point then it didn't come across that way. At least not to me, and I suspect not to the people who were offended."
Maybe so. But he did say this, after all:
I would fight any law that said the opposite because I think it's important that people make choices for themselves.
I guess in this case, it's different for everyone. *shrug*
Jocelyn wrote: "Diane wrote: "Personal preferences I'm okay with but his statements were made as a feminist and is supported by his feminist theory. His ideals revolving around mainstream and radical feminism. Jus..."Didn't somebody make an analogy like that?
"Just so you know, chocolate reinforces societal norms. I dislike the choice of chocolate because it is outdated. People who choose chocolate are living inauthentic lives, they should educate themselves."
Jocelyn wrote: "Maybe so. But he did say this, after all:
I would fight any law that said the opposite because I think it's important that people make choices for themselves.
"
And nobody is offended at that. I think this is a good statement to make.
Diane wrote: "Jocelyn wrote: "Diane wrote: "Personal preferences I'm okay with but his statements were made as a feminist and is supported by his feminist theory. His ideals revolving around mainstream and radic..."
Yeah, I borrowed Dorothy's analogy for this one.
Like I said--I was separating the simple opinion that Alex thinks housewifery is inauthentic apart from the reasons he chooses to support it. He doesn't like housewifery. People like it even less than he does. So why would he consider himself better? It just didn't make sense to me. For example, if I said something like, "I hate Twilight, you guys hate it even more, so therefore I'm a better person."
And nobody is offended at that. I think this is a good statement to make.
No, I just meant that no one should be offended at the statement (in my opinion). That sentence was basically what summed up the point of that entire paragraph with the example of women wearing burqas and hijabs. I agree, it's a good statement to make.
Yeah, I borrowed Dorothy's analogy for this one.
Like I said--I was separating the simple opinion that Alex thinks housewifery is inauthentic apart from the reasons he chooses to support it. He doesn't like housewifery. People like it even less than he does. So why would he consider himself better? It just didn't make sense to me. For example, if I said something like, "I hate Twilight, you guys hate it even more, so therefore I'm a better person."
And nobody is offended at that. I think this is a good statement to make.
No, I just meant that no one should be offended at the statement (in my opinion). That sentence was basically what summed up the point of that entire paragraph with the example of women wearing burqas and hijabs. I agree, it's a good statement to make.
Peace wrote: "Carina wrote: "Mocha Spresso wrote: "Well, i have officially lost power due to sandy. Its been an interesting chat but i have to conserve battery power for now. check you guys later."Hope you ..."
Thanks. I was really lucky compared what some others are going through with the flooding. Our problems here were mainly due to high winds and downed trees.
Lesli wrote: "Alex has his opinions just as much as I do on here and everyone else. I like his point of view about housewifery, and everyone else's too. I think he was trying to say that women that stay at hom..."Why make the assumption that she may have no education or needs to "better herself"? Why make the assumption that having a career is "better" than being a stay at home mom? "Better" is a personal and highly subjective concept.
I have a neighbor that is an attorney who decided to take time off to become a stay at home mom. She has an education. She has "bettered herself". She made a choice that she felt was best for her family. Another neighbor is a former teacher who did the same thing. This is 2012, not 1812.
Someone not liking housewifery would normally be fine but based on some of the statements being made in this discussion, that stance seems to be rooted in prejudice and misguided assumptions. Misguided assumptions about everything from her possible upbringing to what she actually does all day to the possible motivations and reasoning behind her decision. The demeaning generalizations and stereotypes that seem to be influencing that stance is what bothers me.
Back to the ice cream analogy, I don't care that someone doesn't like chocolate....but to assume that someone who does only likes chocolate because they were conditioned to since birth or to assume that they were lazy and had no ambition toward tasting other flavors or to assume that they need to "better themselves" and start liking vanilla is a problem for me.
With that mindset, I may like some vanillas...but I know for sure that I will probably never want your particular brand of vanilla. (take out vanilla and stick in the word feminsim.)
Alex wrote: What about women who wear burqas and hijabs? Now, I don't know about you guys but I'm 100% all in favour of women being able to wear these things if they choose to. I would fight any law that said the opposite because I think it's important that people make choices for themselves .... but at the same time I still see it as a symbol of masculine oppression and I would "like" Muslim women to make the choice not to wear them. If I were to have a conversation with a Muslim woman about them (I never have, unfortunately) I would probably discuss with her why I'm not really behind religion and why I'm not into religious structures that visible demarcate women as inferior. Is it offensive of me to give her my opinion on this?
Does anyone else feel this way, or is it just me? ."
I work in Queens (one of the most ethinically diverse places in the entire US, if not the world.) I come in contact with many women who willingly wear it. You can have the same arguments about upbringing and conditioning etc...but the one thing you shouldn't do is tell them that their dress is a symbol of male oppression. Especially if you are not of their culture/religion and have no real knowledge of it. That is what it is TO YOU and others that happen to think like you. I think the academic term for what I am thinking of is "cultural relativism". It's fine to have an opinion....but when you cross the line into telling a devout muslim woman what her dress supposedly "symbolizes"...yes, at that point, you've crossed into offensive territory.
Diane wrote: "Hahaha. That's a wild assumption to make. I'm not even American. "Are you a capitalist? That one's an easy yes or no question that doesn't require any lengthy circular debate. If you're not then fine, that particular argument doesn't apply. Are you suggesting that I'm wrong in making the assumption that most posters will be?
Hahahaha. You don't know these people personally and I can't see how you would come to this conclusion. This reeks of "I'm better than you".
Actually, I made an argument. Whether I think I'm better than you is irrelevant tbh. What's important to an argument is the argument.
Do you honestly not see how your previous statements fail to respect some women? And how you make it sound like "Well, what you should do is…”?
No matter how well-intentioned, it sounded judgmental and you could at least try to see why women took offense. You ask women to consider looking beyond what they know and educating themselves, let you refuse to acknowledge that your viewpoint as feminist can be problematic.
I can see how the "layabout" comment could be misconstrued as offensive. As for the rest, not really. But then, I hold myself to the same standards that I'm professing and recognize that I, personally, have failed to live up to them. Life is a tough journey and a constant battle against in authenticity and we make mistakes. I think that the important thing is to constantly question our decisions.
I work in Queens (one of the most ethinically diverse places in the entire US, if not the world.) I come in contact with many women who willingly wear it. You can have the same arguments about upbringing and conditioning etc...but the one thing you shouldn't do is tell them that their dress is a symbol of male oppression. Especially if you are not of their culture/religion and have no real knowledge of it. That is what it is TO YOU and others that happen to think like you. I think the academic term for what I am thinking of is "cultural relativism". Right, because they'd find it offensive. How does one draw the line between cultural relativism (and appropriacy) and our own strong, ingrained sense of moral"correctness" when two slightly different cultures come into contact? You can't, really. In the case of internet debate I tend to take the bull by the horns because it's debate - there's a tacit agreement that everyone is here to debate and discuss ideas, right, so what's the use of getting offended at an intellectual idea?
I agree it's best not to have that burqa discussion head on (and it's not something that I've ever done) but nevertheless it's unavoidable that women with burgas notice that all western women don't wear them and vice versa ... the issue is there, in the background whether we like it or not and it will raise itself one way or another.
It sort of struck me as eerily similar to this conversation.
Mocha Spresso wrote: "Alex wrote: What about women who wear burqas and hijabs? Now, I don't know about you guys but I'm 100% all in favour of women being able to wear these things if they choose to. I would fight any la..."Aw yeah. I can see now how that would be offensive.
Alex wrote: "Are you a capitalist? "No, I am not.
It came out of nowhere tbh.
Yes you made an argument, but I'm just pointing out some stuff that you said and how I interpret them since you seem baffled that people are offended at some of the stuff you say.
Alex wrote: "I can see how the "layabout" comment could be misconstrued as offensive. As for the rest, not really. "
There are plenty of people here who mention and explain why they have a problem with your statements.
Alex wrote: "I think that the important thing is to constantly question our decisions. "
But when you constantly question decisions that are not yours, this presents a problem. This is a common issue among feminists. Especially if you do it in the name of feminism and "wanting what's best for people", then you're most likely gonna get called out on it.
If I may, I wanna quote "thefeministmother": "extrapolating your experiences onto whole groups of women without any regard for sexual, class, or racial differences between us. In other words, you routinely make the same assumptions and omissions about women’s lived experiences that have plagued white feminists for decades, and you seem to be unaware of it when you do it".
Diane wrote: "No, I am not. It came out of nowhere tbh.
Yes you made an argument, but I'm just pointing out some stuff that you said and how I interpret them since you seem baffled that people are offended at some of the stuff you say."
Fair enough. *shrug*
It didn't come out of nowhere. If you read back through the argument you'll notice that I've written a number of detailed posts outlining positions which have mostly been met with expressions of emotional hostility rather than arguments that genuinely counter what I'm saying. I'm just looking for other ways to explain why my position isn't offensive, or of it is, I don't think that's relevant.
There are plenty of people here who mention and explain why they have a problem with your statements.
Mostly they are saying ad infinitum that they are offended, not giving very good reasons as to why they're offended beyond that they either are or know housewives who are nice people or successful people. So do I, do I don't see why this matters to the argument?
But when you constantly question decisions that are not yours, this presents a problem. This is a common issue among feminists. Especially if you do it in the name of feminism and "wanting what's best for people", then you're most likely gonna get called out on it.
How do we continue to make progress if we do not question?
If I may, I wanna quote "thefeministmother": "extrapolating your experiences onto whole groups of women without any regard for sexual, class, or racial differences between us. In other words, you routinely make the same assumptions and omissions about women’s lived experiences that have plagued white feminists for decades, and you seem to be unaware of it when you do it".
We're mostly talking about white working/middle class Twilight readers here, since we're discussing Twilight, a White working/lower middle class book.
I think it's not true that I extrapolate experiences with no regard. Actually, what I'm doing - as a male - is reading Twilight from a feminist perspective so I fundamentally am reading it with a cross-cultural eye and a regard for women (as opposed to simply dumping my own experiences as a middle class male onto it) and I'm highlighting/discussing potential differences there may be between us (note some of my long posts discussing these issues). I appreciate that one problem with feminism has been it's ethnocentric white, middle class approach and I'm certainly not arguing that there are no issues/problems with feminist arguments at any point. You're welcome to disagree with me, just do so in a more cogent way than "that's offensive! You hurt my feelings" when I'm obviously not spewing insult.
I think your quote is an interesting and important one, though.
Alex wrote: "Diane wrote: "No, I am not. It came out of nowhere tbh.
Yes you made an argument, but I'm just pointing out some stuff that you said and how I interpret them since you seem baffled that people a..."
Well you oftentimes talk down on people. I can't see how they would be taken well. For example, you told one poster that she didn't know about patriarchy and told her to read a book. You complain that people are being childish and are getting offended but you don't even seem to care about offending people or seeming childish yourself.
More quoting (from cuppycake):
There is just about nothing in the world that is universally offensive to every person. That’s not how offense works. You don’t get a free pass to say whatever you want because you’re not personally affected by it.
Don't dismissive of concerns that are very real and very personal for people.
Mocha Spresso stated it far better than I could: "The demeaning generalizations and stereotypes that seem to be influencing that stance is what bothers me." (Her post expresses a lot of the problems I have with your stances).
Your feminism fails to see the value of the experiences of others. While I'm not forcing you to be more inclusive, I do think some of your views make it harder for full-time mothers' and housewives' type of feminism to be taken seriously. They also must fight against patriarchy and have their issues addressed.
Alex wrote: "How do we continue to make progress if we do not question?"
The more accurate question would be how to question without crossing a line. There is such a thing as a being a self-righteous crappy feminist ally.
I still don't understand why you are belittling housewives tho. Because easily choose that path without being questioned? Do you think patriarchy oppresses them any less? Do you think their burdens lighter than those who don't choose the traditional path? Do you think they have no need for feminism?
You say you are "reading it with a regard for women" but it seems to me that you mean "reading it with a regard for SOME women".
Alex wrote: "Both Dorothy and Mocha want me to take their views seriously on an intellectual level, but every time I try to move the conversation into that sphere they come back at me with "you're being offensive""That's entirely untrue. I started off our conversation by ranting (not my finest moment) about your offensive words. You've since tried to correct yourself. You then insulted me personally by suggesting a lack of intelligence, to which I of course took offense.
Since your apology, I have remained civil and have been arguing against your points with my own. You may not agree with my opinion, but to falsely claim I have waved you off with a simple declaration of "you're being offensive" is bad practice and, frankly, demolishes my interest in having a conversation with you at all.
You speak as if intellectual conversations are mutually exclusive to those of a personal or emotional level. It seems we disagree on an entirely different plane than was previously obvious. On the contrary, I firmly believe it's impossible to have a strictly analytic debate over anything having to do with humanity. The variable in such cases is too extreme to take an analytic approach.
So, before this whole thing deteriorates, let's call it quits. You don't wish to converse in circles and it's clear nothing I'm saying is making any impact on you. There's no need to further frustrate each other.
JOCELYN!!!!Can I just say, I've never disagreed with someone so much and thoroughly enjoyed them at the same time? Even my best friend and I don't disagree as much, and she's Republican! Lol.
Anyway, own your opinions, girl. Own them. However, you should probably know where you stand before you take a stance. Know what you're talking about and be ready to defend yourself.
Also, something it took me a long time to learn, be open seeing the other side. The first thing we did in my debate class was switch sides. All who believed in organized religion's positive influence on society had to argue its negative qualities, and all who believed that organized religion was a negative influence had to argue for it. The point being you can never fully grasp your own opinion if you do not see everything laid before you. French fries can only be the best way to eat potatoes if you've tried them mashed, baked, and turned into hash. Know what I mean?
I agree with whoever said the tip-toeing thing was the worst thing you could do. If someone truly does misunderstand you, let them know. But if you're only afraid they took offense, apologize if what you said offended them and then take the bull by the horns and let them know why you believe what you do. You can not please everyone. You can only please yourself. It's something I learned in writing, but which applies to life. Obviously be respectful of other opinions and state your own in a cordial manner, but disagreeing with someone does not make you a bad person.
Jocelyn wrote: "In my view, whether Alex likes or dislikes housewifery seems as trivial as someone's personal preference to ice cream. He's not using his personal preference to argue anything, nor is he trying to impress it upon anyone."But he is, Jocelyn, and it isn't as trivial (and for the record, that is an awesome analogy *holds nose high in air*). He used his personal preference to not only generalize an entire group of people (both men and women), but to argue the merits of feminism. It's not as simple as "I don't like chocolate." It's more like, "I don't think well of anyone who likes chocolate. It's a bad choice." And then he goes on to liking chocolate is anti-feminist because the patriarchal system made me choose it. Or maybe he started by saying that? Oh, jeez. Who can remember?
Alex wrote: Right, because they'd find it offensive. How does one draw the line between cultural relativism (and appropriacy) and our own strong, ingrained sense of moral"correctness" when two slightly different cultures come into contact? You can't, really. In the case of internet debate I tend to take the bull by the horns because it's debate - there's a tacit agreement that everyone is here to debate and discuss ideas, right, so what's the use of getting offended at an intellectual idea? I agree it's best not to have that burqa discussion head on (and it's not something that I've ever done) but nevertheless it's unavoidable that women with burgas notice that all western women don't wear them and vice versa ... the issue is there, in the background whether we like it or not and it will raise itself one way or another."
I didn't say that you couldn't have the discussion. I think you can. I said that you shouldn't presume to tell them what it "symbolizes". That is where you step into offensive territory because that "symbolism" that you are referring to is based on YOUR western beliefs and don't consider her cultural/religious beliefs at all. That is when it becomes offensive. You shouldn't presume to tell her why she wears it or what it symbolizes to her....especially when your knowledge of that culture/religion is rather limited.
Mocha Spresso wrote: "Well, i have officially lost power due to sandy. Its been an interesting chat but i have to conserve battery power for now. check you guys later. "Oh, no! Are you okay? Which state are you in? I've been watching the news religiously since Monday morning. It's terrible.
"I disagree that it is an inauthentic choice that involves living one's life vicariously through others. I vehemently disagree with that.
This is the part I don't get. I mean, I can see how someone might not get why motherhood would attract a person. My best friend doesn't get the whole motherhood thing. She's obsessed with her career, doesn't want to be tied down. But she's totally supportive of me and all her other friends that want to be mothers. She doesn't look down on us at all. It's this idea that a housewife is a mindless slave to others' desires that boggles my mind.
"Personal attack? No. I do take offense to his views on being a housewife....but I won't loose sleep over it if that is what you are asking. "
Okay, be forewarned, I'm about to be a huge, unlikable bitch right now. A knot can come loose. You can lose sleep, keys, and races. Please don't hate me! It's my job on a daily basis to spot errors like this and I try not to do it online, but lose/loose is like my kryptonite. I heart you and your opinion and thank you for fighting the good fight. *runs and hides*
Alex wrote: "I get the impression that people want to believe that this issue isn't relevant in 2012. I don't really understand the willingness to believe that these issues have completely gone away ... times have certainly changed but if you've not noticed that the career ceiling for woman is significantly lower for women than men then you're not looking very hard."The reason I listed all the things wrong in America today in a previous post was to enlighten you to the mind and life of a modern woman. You seem to think that because I disagree with you, I obviously know nothing of the world or of the hardships women face. You would be wrong.
Alex wrote: "There's only about 2% of Americans who would choose to vote for a president other than the top 2 candidates (in this case Obama or Romney)."Yep, and those 2% are voting for Rosanne Barr *snort*.
Diane wrote: "Didn't somebody make an analogy like that?"Just so you know, chocolate reinforces societal norms. I dislike the choice of chocolate because it is outdated. People who choose chocolate are living inauthentic lives, they should educate themselves.""
LOL! Thank you for that. Truly.
Peace wrote: "Dorothy wrote: "Alex wrote: "There's only about 2% of Americans who would choose to vote for a president other than the top 2 candidates (in this case Obama or Romney)."Yep, and those 2% are voti..."
Rosanne Barr is a sitcom star from the 90s. She's running for president. It's... *sigh* I can't even describe my feelings on the subject.
Dorothy wrote: "The reason I listed all the things wrong in America today in a previous post was to enlighten you to the mind and life of a modern woman. You seem to think that because I disagree with you, I obviously know nothing of the world or of the hardships women face. You would be wrong. "Good point. I fess up. I've had very little contact with actual modern women. I've heard that they're pretty good in bed though, is that true - or do they just do politics?
Alex wrote: "Mostly they are saying ad infinitum that they are offended, not giving very good reasons as to why they're offended beyond that they either are or know housewives who are nice people or successful people."It baffels me how one can fail to understand why making a grand sweeping accusation against _all_ women that happen to be "only" housewives, by summing up their lifechoice as inauthentic, will be regarded as offensive.
If your quarrel really is with the system, then, for Pete's sake, attack the system and not those that live in it.
Dorothy wrote: "Alex wrote: "Since your apology, I have remained civil and have been arguing against your points with my own. You may not agree with my opinion, but to falsely claim I have waved you off with a simple declaration of "you're being offensive" is bad practice and, frankly, demolishes my interest in having a conversation with you at all.You speak as if intellectual conversations are mutually exclusive to those of a personal or emotional level. It seems we disagree on an entirely different plane than was previously obvious. On the contrary, I firmly believe it's impossible to have a strictly analytic debate over anything having to do with humanity. The variable in such cases is too extreme to take an analytic approach.
So, before this whole thing deteriorates, let's call it quits. You don't wish to converse in circles and it's clear nothing I'm saying is making any impact on you. There's no need to further frustrate each other. "
You've been perfectly civil and I have no issues with you personally. It's a bit tiring writing long posts only to have any number of people completely miss the point and call them offensive again and again when they're blatantly not. That's why I think your approach to argumentation is terrible, not because I think you're being rude but because there's nothing I can do with it. I tried multiple times to say 'look this isn't offensive, you guys are just reading it wrong' but nobody cares to engage on that level.
To say that you can't have an analytical debate (whatever that's suosed to mean - something that pressuposes you'll discuss actual ideas and concepts?) is complete nonsense to me. Do you want the world and its ideas to be reduced down to some gigantic Oprah Winfrey show?
Mocha Spresso wrote: "I didn't say that you couldn't have the discussion. I think you can. I said that you shouldn't presume to tell them what it "symbolizes". That is where you step into offensive territory because that "symbolism" that you are referring to is based on YOUR western beliefs and don't consider her cultural/religious beliefs at all. That is when it becomes offensive. You shouldn't presume to tell her why she wears it or what it symbolizes to her....especially when your knowledge of that culture/religion is rather limited. How dare I have discussions about things because I blatantly don't understand anything...
I think the question was 'have you ever thought 'I don't think women should wear burqas?'.
I think that what I said was that if I were to debate the issue I'd probably have an opinion. It may be wrong and it may well be informed by what a Burqa wearer has to tell me about her culture and lifestyle, but the point is I think a lot of women in this thread will have 'opinions' about burqa wearing whether they're prepared at this juncture to openly state that or not ... sunce openly admitting that they thought non-burqa wearing were better in any way would make them somewhat hypocritical.
Gerd wrote: "Alex wrote: "Mostly they are saying ad infinitum that they are offended, not giving very good reasons as to why they're offended beyond that they either are or know housewives who are nice people o..."Yes, I recall primarily that I was attacking Twilight and attempting to explain how popular literature with female steretypes props up patriarchal power systems but you, amongst others, were more concerned with crying foul about a perceived slight to housewives. The reason I'm still here is because the system pisses me off. Why are you?
Dorothy wrote: "JOCELYN!!!!Anyway, own your opinions, girl. Own them. However, you should probably know where you stand before you take a stance. Know what you're talking about and be ready to defend yourself.
Also, something it took me a long time to learn, be open seeing the other side. The first thing we did in my debate class was switch sides. All who believed in organized religion's positive influence on society had to argue its negative qualities, and all who believed that organized religion was a negative influence had to argue for it. The point being you can never fully grasp your own opinion if you do not see everything laid before you. French fries can only be the best way to eat potatoes if you've tried them mashed, baked, and turned into hash. Know what I mean?."
The subtext of this seems to be that at present you believe Jocelyn isn't capable of appreciating two sides of an argument. Weren't you a little outraged when I told you that you needed to get educated? Jocelyn seems to be perfectly capable to me. Maybe I have a bias since her views have been more sympathetic to my own than others, but Jocelyn comes across to me as smarter and sharper than the majority of adults. By the time she's 18 she's going to be a force to reckon with, I'm quite confident. As far as I can see the only issue she has is negotiating online bullies, which is simething we all struggle with.
Alex wrote: "Why are you?"I ask myself the same question everyday, some say it's because several billion cells insist that I continue. :)
Alex wrote: "Yes, I recall primarily that I was attacking Twilight and attempting to explain how popular literature with female steretypes props up patriarchal power systems"
Yes, but only after the generalizing nature of your intial arguments was pointed out to you - and then you still insisted on calling the _choice_ to be a housewife inauthentic, which can solely be based on the fact that _you_ can't imagine to make that choice for yourself. ;)
Edit:
The thing is I don’t disagree much with your arguments, I disagree with how you present them.
Not everybody that decides to take up a negatively loaded lifestyle does so because they believe it to be the choice they have to make, you can’t – well, as we saw you can, but you shouldn’t – insinuate that nobody can make such a choice out of his or her own accord, after weighing all available options.
We do likely disagree with how one should strive to live his life, though – I do find your ideal that one should live his life true to oneself is an admirable one, but too few people can ever really have such a choice, for it to be more than a academic stance; me, I’m saying these days that when at the end of a year you can look back and say that the good days did outweigh the bad, you haven’t made to many wrong choices.
Diane wrote: "Well you oftentimes talk down on people. I can't see how they would be taken well. For example, you told one poster that she didn't know about patriarchy and told her to read a book. You complain that people are being childish and are getting offended but you don't even seem to care about offending people or seeming childish yourself."Don't care about offending? It was a one off and I apologised to that poster. The "you're being so offensive about housewives" mantra is recurring over and over again however, when I've made repeated efforts to move the conversation onwards. There's a huge difference.
I do think some of your views make it harder for full-time mothers' and housewives' type of feminism to be taken seriously. They also must fight against patriarchy and have their issues addressed.
What type of feminism is that? What exactly are they arguing for? I don't really know to be honest. I've repeatedly stated that I'm very pro housewives having the choice to be housewives, so what are they even disagreeing with? Not a lot, they just want to really throw their hands up and be offended about something because ... well, I don't really know why to be honest. "You don't like housewivess. ahhhhh like meeeee, vaaaaaalidate meeeeee.
I still don't understand why you are belittling housewives tho. Because easily choose that path without being questioned? Do you think patriarchy oppresses them any less? Do you think their burdens lighter than those who don't choose the traditional path? Do you think they have no need for feminism?
I'm not belittling them... oh wait, I said this about 15 times already. I think you'll find the answer to all those questions and more in posts that I've already made.
@ Alex
Thanks for the compliment! I really appreciate it. It made my day, no kidding :) Now, I know at least I'm not UTTERLY hopeless. XD
Dorothy wrote: "JOCELYN!!!!
Can I just say, I've never disagreed with someone so much and thoroughly enjoyed them at the same time? Even my best friend and I don't disagree as much, and she's Republican! Lol.
An..."
I know. I'm guilty. :)
Part of it's just my experience, though. I've offended SOOOOO many people recently on accident, it's driving me nuts. I know it's unavoidable, but I think it's possible to make sure the numbers of people who are offended go down. It's just so damn frustrating. I would say, "I don't like Twilight because of so-and-so." A few minutes later..."OMG YOU OFFENDED ME!!!!!" Gah! I just can't help it. *facepalm* But I guess you're right. I just...uggghhhhh....
Sorry about that. I feel like if ONE more person calls me out for something, I'm going to explode.
I mean, look at Alex's posts. He's done the exact opposite I've done; while I constantly take such lengths to make sure no one is offended, he brazenly defends his opinion without seeming to care. Yet so many people tell him they're offended, yadda yadda. I'm not saying that it's horrible to be offended, or that if you're offended you're a sensitive weakling, but it does really grate on me. So much to the point when I would write my post, comb through it, reread it a thousand more times to make sure it's harmless as possible, post it...TADAAAA someone is offended. *shakes head* Maybe it's just my naiveté.
Though if I may speak for myself...I have defended my opinions quite a bit, even if they've gotten some serious backlash for offending this and offending that. Sooner or later I'm going to offend every freaking grain of sand on the face of this planet. Wow, I feel pathetic. *dramatic sigh*
Like Alex said, though, I do prefer being objective than being on SOLELY one side of the argument, which is why I may dance around from time to time. I would agree with this but disagree with that, blah blah blah. Etc.
Can I just say, I've never disagreed with someone so much and thoroughly enjoyed them at the same time? Even my best friend and I don't disagree as much, and she's Republican! Lol.
I'm honored! *deep bow* Never knew I was so special. *giddy with happiness*
At the same time, *eye roll*
Thanks for the compliment! I really appreciate it. It made my day, no kidding :) Now, I know at least I'm not UTTERLY hopeless. XD
Dorothy wrote: "JOCELYN!!!!
Can I just say, I've never disagreed with someone so much and thoroughly enjoyed them at the same time? Even my best friend and I don't disagree as much, and she's Republican! Lol.
An..."
I know. I'm guilty. :)
Part of it's just my experience, though. I've offended SOOOOO many people recently on accident, it's driving me nuts. I know it's unavoidable, but I think it's possible to make sure the numbers of people who are offended go down. It's just so damn frustrating. I would say, "I don't like Twilight because of so-and-so." A few minutes later..."OMG YOU OFFENDED ME!!!!!" Gah! I just can't help it. *facepalm* But I guess you're right. I just...uggghhhhh....
Sorry about that. I feel like if ONE more person calls me out for something, I'm going to explode.
I mean, look at Alex's posts. He's done the exact opposite I've done; while I constantly take such lengths to make sure no one is offended, he brazenly defends his opinion without seeming to care. Yet so many people tell him they're offended, yadda yadda. I'm not saying that it's horrible to be offended, or that if you're offended you're a sensitive weakling, but it does really grate on me. So much to the point when I would write my post, comb through it, reread it a thousand more times to make sure it's harmless as possible, post it...TADAAAA someone is offended. *shakes head* Maybe it's just my naiveté.
Though if I may speak for myself...I have defended my opinions quite a bit, even if they've gotten some serious backlash for offending this and offending that. Sooner or later I'm going to offend every freaking grain of sand on the face of this planet. Wow, I feel pathetic. *dramatic sigh*
Like Alex said, though, I do prefer being objective than being on SOLELY one side of the argument, which is why I may dance around from time to time. I would agree with this but disagree with that, blah blah blah. Etc.
Can I just say, I've never disagreed with someone so much and thoroughly enjoyed them at the same time? Even my best friend and I don't disagree as much, and she's Republican! Lol.
I'm honored! *deep bow* Never knew I was so special. *giddy with happiness*
At the same time, *eye roll*
Alex wrote: "What type of feminism is that? What exactly are they arguing for? I don't really know to be honest. I've repeatedly stated that I'm very pro housewives having the choice to be housewives, so what are they even disagreeing with?"
I think they're arguing this: if housewifery is so bad and we want to be housewives, what's the point of feminism? I think they're saying that modern feminism can be so over the top it can actually become a form of antifeminism. They're arguing for balance, I suppose you could say. Women can be strong, but strong in many ways.
To be honest, I've never heard of that feminism type either, this is pure guesswork on my part.
I think they're arguing this: if housewifery is so bad and we want to be housewives, what's the point of feminism? I think they're saying that modern feminism can be so over the top it can actually become a form of antifeminism. They're arguing for balance, I suppose you could say. Women can be strong, but strong in many ways.
To be honest, I've never heard of that feminism type either, this is pure guesswork on my part.
@JocelynActually, I think the offense people have taken is completely justified. For a self-proclaimed feminist to stand up and say that women who choose to be stay-at-home moms are uneducated layabouts whose lives are not genuine, well, Them's fightin' words! That is directed toward the women themselves, not the choice they made.
@Alex
I respect the point that you are trying to make. I just feel that when you berate people it makes it difficult for us to relate to what you are saying, whether we might agree with you or not.
Jocelyn wrote: "Alex wrote: "What type of feminism is that? What exactly are they arguing for? I don't really know to be honest. I've repeatedly stated that I'm very pro housewives having the choice to be housewiv..."That's exactly it. Sort of a reverse descrimination scenario. Women have fought for the freedoms and choices we have now, so some might see it as insulting that a woman today might choose not to take advantage of said opportunities. But looking down on a woman who chose a family over a career is just as bad as criticizing a woman who put her career before her family. Quid pro quo.
But he is, Jocelyn, and it isn't as trivial (and for the record, that is an awesome analogy *holds nose high in air*). He used his personal preference to not only generalize an entire group of people (both men and women), but to argue the merits of feminism.
Congrats on the analogy, despite the fact that Alex proved it to be inaccurate I still very much liked it. *applauds*
I think I might have been unclear. So I'll clarify: it's the simple fact that he doesn't like housewifery I find to be trivial, not the reasons he chooses to support it. Then I could understand taking offense. Most of the "I was offended" comments were in response to something Alex said that I clearly remembered started with the word "personally."
Also: I think it's the choice of housewifery that Alex personally dislikes, not the women who make that choice. If he thought less of the character of the people who made that choice, that would be seriously lame. But he doesn't, as far as I can see.
It's not as simple as "I don't like chocolate." It's more like, "I don't think well of anyone who likes chocolate. It's a bad choice."
Like I said: it's not the simple opinion of Alex's or anyone else's you should argue, it's the reasons they choose to support it.
And then he goes on to liking chocolate is anti-feminist because the patriarchal system made me choose it. Or maybe he started by saying that? Oh, jeez. Who can remember?
Actually, I think it was hypothetical. It's not an authentic choice IF they make that choice without being fully aware. Therefore women should put in some extra consideration while making that choice. He's not saying, "if you're a housewife, you're automatically a dumbass." Because now THAT would be really stupid.
Congrats on the analogy, despite the fact that Alex proved it to be inaccurate I still very much liked it. *applauds*
I think I might have been unclear. So I'll clarify: it's the simple fact that he doesn't like housewifery I find to be trivial, not the reasons he chooses to support it. Then I could understand taking offense. Most of the "I was offended" comments were in response to something Alex said that I clearly remembered started with the word "personally."
Also: I think it's the choice of housewifery that Alex personally dislikes, not the women who make that choice. If he thought less of the character of the people who made that choice, that would be seriously lame. But he doesn't, as far as I can see.
It's not as simple as "I don't like chocolate." It's more like, "I don't think well of anyone who likes chocolate. It's a bad choice."
Like I said: it's not the simple opinion of Alex's or anyone else's you should argue, it's the reasons they choose to support it.
And then he goes on to liking chocolate is anti-feminist because the patriarchal system made me choose it. Or maybe he started by saying that? Oh, jeez. Who can remember?
Actually, I think it was hypothetical. It's not an authentic choice IF they make that choice without being fully aware. Therefore women should put in some extra consideration while making that choice. He's not saying, "if you're a housewife, you're automatically a dumbass." Because now THAT would be really stupid.
Allison wrote: "@Jocelyn
Actually, I think the offense people have taken is completely justified. For a self-proclaimed feminist to stand up and say that women who choose to be stay-at-home moms are uneducated la..."
I guess so. Maybe it's a matter of perspective on this case. For me it was so clearly just a personal preference, yet soooo many people took offense I was just as baffled as Alex as to why. *shrug*
Actually, I think the offense people have taken is completely justified. For a self-proclaimed feminist to stand up and say that women who choose to be stay-at-home moms are uneducated la..."
I guess so. Maybe it's a matter of perspective on this case. For me it was so clearly just a personal preference, yet soooo many people took offense I was just as baffled as Alex as to why. *shrug*
Dorothy wrote: "Okay, be forewarned, I'm about to be a huge, unlikable bitch right now. A knot can come loose. You can lose sleep, keys, and races. Please don't hate me! It's my job on a daily basis to spot errors like this and I try not to do it online, but lose/loose is like my kryptonite. I heart you and your opinion and thank you for fighting the good fight. *runs and hides*"
U LITTLE JERK!!!!
*grabs you and holds on tight*
(I'm trolling, btw, just in case anyone takes me literally...)
U LITTLE JERK!!!!
*grabs you and holds on tight*
(I'm trolling, btw, just in case anyone takes me literally...)
Saying that an anti-feminist character dooms readers to be subjugated housewives is like saying that watching "Dexter" will make people serial killers.
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
Every Other Day (other topics)
The Short Second Life of Bree Tanner (other topics)
Twilight (other topics)
Books mentioned in this topic
The Master and Margarita (other topics)Every Other Day (other topics)
The Short Second Life of Bree Tanner (other topics)
Twilight (other topics)
